The Cracked Mirror.

[AnneGuedes]

I translated this already I don't remember on what thread.
The MP directs the investigation, the judge (Frias) making sure fundamental rights are respected, his attributions being listed a) to e).
Durante o inquérito, cujo prazo máximo é de oito meses (havendo arguidos sujeitos a medidas de coacção, o prazo é de seis a oito meses, conforme o tipo de crimes de crime e a complexidade da investigação), o Ministério Público dirige ou realiza directamente a investigação, estando, no entanto, reservados ao juiz certos actos que se prendem com garantias e direitos fundamentais e designadamente:
a) o primeiro interrogatório judicial de arguido detido;
b) a aplicação de medidas de coacção ou de garantia patrimonial, salvo o termo de identidade e residência;
c) a realização de buscas e apreensões em escritório de advogado, consultório médico ou estabelecimento bancário;
d) a intercepção e gravação de conversações ou comunicações telefónicas;
e) a apreensão de correspondência.

[Carana]

I translated this already I don't remember on what thread.
The MP directs the investigation, the judge (Frias) making sure fundamental rights are respected, his attributions being listed a) to e).
Durante o inquérito, cujo prazo máximo é de oito meses (havendo arguidos sujeitos a medidas de coacção, o prazo é de seis a oito meses, conforme o tipo de crimes de crime e a complexidade da investigação), o Ministério Público dirige ou realiza directamente a investigação, estando, no entanto, reservados ao juiz certos actos que se prendem com garantias e direitos fundamentais e designadamente:
a) o primeiro interrogatório judicial de arguido detido;
b) a aplicação de medidas de coacção ou de garantia patrimonial, salvo o termo de identidade e residência;
c) a realização de buscas e apreensões em escritório de advogado, consultório médico ou estabelecimento bancário;
d) a intercepção e gravação de conversações ou comunicações telefónicas;
e) a apreensão de correspondência.

Thanks Anne.

The Public Ministry is the Public Prosecutor's Office, I presume?

I haven't seen much in the files - aside from official authorisations or refusals - that would indicate that anyone beyond Amaral was dealing with day-to-day affairs.

There was something about some issue in a family court hearing at one point, from memory, but I don't recall anything else.

Or have you found anything substantially different?

[Jean-Pierre]

The PJ nailed their colours pretty firmly to the mast during the "arguido" interview with Gerry McCann in September 2007:

____________

Regarding the signalling of cadaver odour in the vehicle that was rented in late May, license plate 49-DA-27, he says he cannot explain more than what he already has.

Regarding the signalling of human blood in the boot of the same vehicle, he says that he has no explanation for this fact.

When confronted with the fact that Madeleine’s DNA was collected from behind the sofa and in the boot of the vehicle, and analyzed by a British laboratory, situations that had already been described before, he says that he cannot explain.

___________

During this interview the arguido was informed of his duty to respect the secrecy of justice, as well as the consequences of not complying with it, stipulated in current law.

(a shame that elements of the PJ were not prepared to abide by that, it seems)

All in all, is it surprising that KM decided, on legal advice, not to play their games? (the line of questionning was clearly designed to incriminate the arguida, rather than find Madeleine).

And finally the "coordinator" shamefully chose to write a book about the case, accusing the parents in print (for his own profit) playing on and abusing his position of privilege and in the process

Altogether, not the PJs finest hour, really.   

[Albertini]

Despite the best efforts of some posters to derail the core message and obfuscate the facts are simple:

1) The archiving report was produced by a public prosecutor which is essentially the PT equivalent of a CPS Lawyer or a DA.

2) Public prosecutors cannot determine innocence or guilt, only a Judge in a Court can.

3) The Public Prosecutor's thesis was that there was no evidence to suggest the Mccann's had committed a crime in the "disturbed" (interupted, incomplete) investigation. This thesis was not a court ruled decision, it was an interpretation of the facts by a public prosecutor who has no legal basis to determine if someone has been found "not guilty".

4) However by not performing the reconstruction and allowing the investigation to move forward the McCann's had lost their chance to prove their innocence. How can you be exonerated if you have not proven your innocence?

5) Suspects the world over IN AN INVESTIGATION have to demonstrate their innocence in order to rule them out as suspects. Where were you on the night of..... No answer then you have not demonstrated you are innocent and the police will still look at you.

6) This was validated by the assistant chief constable of Leicestershire stating “While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence which clears them of involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.” He was saying they had not DEMONSTRATED THEIR INNOCENCE in exactly the same way the archiving report did. This statement has never been withdrawn by LP.

7) In the book banning case the Judges (real Judges in a real Court) stated that the PJ's thesis was an equally valid police led interpretation of the same facts as the prosecutors report. They stated:

What is certain  is that since the start of the investigation, there were incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements, the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them, the movements of people immediately after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?), etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the aforementioned sniffer dogs."

"Where Amaral differs from the Prosecutors who wrote the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he [Amaral] makes of those facts."

We need, to stress the following: the facts that led to the applicants' constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not sufficiently valued by the Public Ministry's Prosecutors to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen from a different angle, may lead to a different conclusion from that of the prosecutors.
Suggestive data ("indications") that were deemed to be insufficient in terms of evidence in a criminal investigation, can be appreciated in a different way, in an interpretation that can legitimately be published as a book, as long as the interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved. In our view that said interpretation does not offend the applicants' rights."

8) In the book banning libel trial the prosecutor who wrote the archiving report stated on oath that the McCann's and their friends lied.

Until such time as these points are rebutted with full reasoning and evidence then this thread will fail to move forward.

You can go off in whatever tangent you like but these irrefutable facts which require either rebuttal or if not forthcoming then an acknowledgement that they are correct.

[Jean-Pierre]

Albertini.  Amid all of the waffle, are you allowing for the presumption of innocence (probably better termed as "assumption of innocence". 

"A principle that requires the government to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant and relieves the defendant of any burden to prove his or her innocence"

assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v Kentucky 1978).

The principle holds good for all civilised jurisdictions. 

[Albertini]

Albertini.  Amid all of the waffle, are you allowing for the presumption of innocence (probably better termed as "assumption of innocence". 

"A principle that requires the government to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant and relieves the defendant of any burden to prove his or her innocence"

assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v Kentucky 1978).

The principle holds good for all civilised jurisdictions.

You too have made the same mistake as others.

Yes in a CRIMINAL TRIAL but NOT in a police investigation where suspects have to demonstrate their innocence to be ruled out of investigative enquiries.

We have both the archiving report that so many McCann supporters cling to AND THE Leicestershire Police BOTH stating the Mccann's have failed to "demonstrate their innocence".

What is waffle? Which bit? Pick any of the points you call as waffle and i will walk you through it.

[Jean-Pierre]

You too have made the same mistake as others.

Yes in a CRIMINAL TRIAL but NOT in a police investigation where suspects have to demonstrate their innocence to be ruled out of investigative enquiries.

What is waffle? Which bit? Pick any of the points you call as waffle and i will walk you through it.

Of course the police must approach each "suspect" from the point of view that they may have "dun it" and see if they can find evidence accordingly. 

Howver, the onus is entirely on the police to find evidence (forensic, confessional, circumstantial) sufficent to bring a case to trial.  The "suspect"does not have to do anything, provide any evidence of innocence or answer any questions.   





   



The   

[Albertini]

Of course the police must approach each "suspect" from the point of view that they may have "dun it" and see if they can find evidence accordingly. 

Hover, the onus is entirely on the police to find evidence (forensic, confessional, circumstantial) sufficient to bring a case to trial.  The "suspect"does not have to do anything, provide any evidence of innocence or answer any questions.   

Nope you are wrong, because it is clear suspects DO have to prove their innocence as we have both the archiving report AND Leicestershire Police stating on record (and never rescinded since by either body)  that the McCann's have failed to prove their innocence.

So if suspects don't need to prove their innocence why did you think those two reports specifically mention that the Mccann's didn't prove theirs?

This is what actual prosecutors and law enforcement have said about the McCann's!

No, of course suspects are under no obligation to prove their innocence but that means they will still remain suspects precisely because they do not or cannot rules themselves out and prove to the investigation that they are innocent.

Clear now?

[ferryman]

We have both the archiving report that so many McCann supporters cling to AND THE Leicestershire Police BOTH stating the Mccann's have failed to "demonstrate their innocence".

The Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police (or was it the Assistant Chief Constable?) did say that -- while the McCanns were still arguidos.

At that juncture, he probably would not have read the case files, then (at least officially) still under secrecy.

He emphatically and unreservedly would not say the same today ...

[Albertini]

We have both the archiving report that so many McCann supporters cling to AND THE Leicestershire Police BOTH stating the Mccann's have failed to "demonstrate their innocence".

The Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police (or was it the Assistant Chief Constable?) did say that -- while the McCanns were still arguidos.

At that juncture, he probably would not have read the case files, then (at least officially) still under secrecy.

He emphatically and unreservedly would not say the same today ...

The comment was made on the 7th July 2008 in open court. The archiving report was dated 21st July 2008 (and was worked on with LP who worked with the PJ all the way through the case and process)

It has never publically been rescinded has it.

What does that tell you?

edited to add: It was the assistant chief constable on behalf of the force.

[Albertini]

duplicate post removed!
Sorry!

[Carana]

I agree with that Ferryman.   The report was quite clear that he was following a particular brief, and was therefore confined to that brief.

Amaral appeared to morph that into a specific conclusion by Harrison.

He also managed to misinterpret the FSS report.

I do wonder how this chap ever managed to become a detective.

I'm aware of that. But would Harrison's involvement change the chain of command in terms of the Portuguese judicial process? That seems unlikely to me...

[Carana]

The comment was made on the 7th July 2008 in open court. The archiving report was dated 21st July 2008 (and was worked on with LP who worked with the PJ all the way through the case and process)

It has never publically been rescinded has it.

What does that tell you?

edited to add: It was the assistant chief constable on behalf of the force.

Dunno.

I haven't double-checked the dates, but I'll assume that you have.

If your dates are correct, it tells me that the comment was made 2 weeks prior to the official announcement of the archiving report, which lifted the arguido status of all three of them.

Would the decision have been different if that hearing had been held 2 weeks after the archiving?

[Albertini]

Dunno.

I haven't double-checked the dates, but I'll assume that you have.

If your dates are correct, it tells me that the comment was made 2 weeks prior to the official announcement of the archiving report, which lifted the arguido status of all three of them.

Would the decision have been different if that hearing had been held 2 weeks after the archiving?

Nope, cos do you think anything new would have come out in those two weeks? If so what was it?

Given the size of the report do you not think it was virtually written up 2 weeks before (withe, i believe the LP's help).

And finally both the archiving and the LP say the same thing about them failing to prove their innocence. They are singing from the same hymn sheet.

[Carana]

Nope, cos do you think anything new would have come out in those two weeks? If so what was it?

Given the size of the report do you not think it was virtually written up 2 weeks before (withe, i believe the LP's help).

And finally both the archiving and the LP say the same thing about them failing to prove their innocence. They are singing from the same hymn sheet.

I have no idea how long such hearings have to be booked in advance. The timing of that hearing was a bit unfortunate.

At the time of that hearing, the case had not yet been officially archived.

Officially, the parents were still arguidos. They wouldn't have been 2 weeks later.

I have no idea whether LP would have been able to hand over more if the hearing had taken place once their arguido status had been lifted.

It did involve a complex relationship with foreign authorities.




And well-placed fans on open windows.